Cousins

Remove this Banner Ad

giantsully said:
Why is it a stupid question? Which part isn't true?
Click to expand...
Firstly, where does the 2-year ban come from?

Secondly, you want players punished even when they haven't been caught. So what's the burden of evidence for a charge against a player to be sustained?

"We know you did it - we can't prove it, because we never caught you, but we're going to ban you anyway."

That is not sound policy.
 
Gunnar Longshanks said:
Officially, they suspended him for missing training. But the Eagles don't need to clarify their reasons. There's no obligation for the club to do that.
Click to expand...

Hence the reason your leadership group were hauled into the AFL office to answer questions and clarify their actions with player behaviour !!!

Then in closing Dalton Gooding said Sorry to all and sundry...:confused: :confused:
 
Gunnar Longshanks said:
Firstly, where does the 2-year ban come from?

Secondly, you want players punished even when they haven't been caught. So what's the burden of evidence for a charge against a player to be sustained?

"We know you did it - we can't prove it, because we never caught you, but we're going to ban you anyway."

That is not sound policy.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the punishment for an in-competition positive test isn't a two year ban? I think you'll find it is.

Are you suggesting that the criminal burden of proof applies to an AFL ruling? I think you'll find you're in dream world!! There have been various reports that Ben's issues started mid-way thru last season - do you honestly think that if the AFL wanted to prove a point they couldn't demonstrate this sufficient to give Cousins a nice 2 year holiday? They won't of course - PROVIDED that the Eagles play ball & do exactly as they're told.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

do you think cousins should be hair tested?

it tracks drugs stored up to 90 days previously...

and we know it isn't going to happen because the AFL doesn't want to find cousins guilty does it?
 
dan warna said:
do you think cousins should be hair tested?

it tracks drugs stored up to 90 days previously...

and we know it isn't going to happen because the AFL doesn't want to find cousins guilty does it?
Click to expand...

Because all the AFL care about is in competition drug tests.

Hair testing does not tell you which days the drugs were taken, basically its useless.

Cousins has never been tested positive to in-competition (gameday) testing so any talk of 2 years bans is stupid.

The penalty for positives for out of competition testing, after 3 positive results, is 12 weeks.

Which Cousins has already gotten from his club.

Case closed move on.
 
Max zero said:
Cousins has never been tested positive to in-competition (gameday) testing so any talk of 2 years bans is stupid.
Click to expand...

Why? Do you think that if Cousins came out today & said "Oh yeh, I did a few lines before most games" the AFL would shrug their shoulders & say "Oh well, we never got that positive test, so our bad"? Of course they wouldn't.

As I said at the beginning, this is merely the AFL's fall back position - if WCE try to bring back Cousins before Andy & the boys deem it appropriate, that's when the investigators go crawling over every square inch of Subiaco Oval. The WCE admin aren't totally dumb - they know this & they'll keep Ben tucked away till 2008.
 
giantsully said:
Why? Do you think that if Cousins came out today & said "Oh yeh, I did a few lines before most games" the AFL would shrug their shoulders & say "Oh well, we never got that positive test, so our bad"? Of course they wouldn't.

As I said at the beginning, this is merely the AFL's fall back position - if WCE try to bring back Cousins before Andy & the boys deem it appropriate, that's when the investigators go crawling over every square inch of Subiaco Oval. The WCE admin aren't totally dumb - they know this & they'll keep Ben tucked away till 2008.
Click to expand...

If he did a few lines before most games he must be the luckiest person in the world to miss the 14 times hes been tested.

My bet is he will come back after the mid season break after serving his unofficial 12 week suspension.
 
=Tyberious Funk;7419733]You're splitting hairs. How can you honestly argue that his current suspension is completely independent? I repeat... either you accept that he actually hasn't breached any AFL rules because he hasn't tested positive to any drugs (despite numerous tests). Or we agree that, he has broken the rules in spirit and should be punished accordingly with a 12 week suspension... starting from when it was revealed the breach occured. Round 1.
Click to expand...

He has breached the standard player contract which forbids the use of illicit substances. that is why there is a penalty for those that test positive. there obviously is a clasue that says that you cannot use illict substances. there is no clause which says you can only be found out by the testing regime.

The club has never stated it was drugs he was suspended for. They stated disciplinary reasons. They tried to hide the truth and only admitted idrugs was a problem after overwhelming public outcry. You cant have it both ways. If you say that it was drugs that he was supended for, why in March and not last July? Therefore the only credible authority to penalise Cousins for drug use is the AFL and it should be from a time after Cousins admits his drug use. Not from some point West Coast applied a suspension, for things other than drugs, according to them.


Oh, and I don't agree the club is completely to blame. I'd say Cousins is the one to blame. But as a supporter, I'm still very disappointed in my club and the way they have handled things. Having said that, what can they do? They have a champion player who continues to perform on the field and has never returned a positive drug test (at least as far as they knew). There is only so far that a club can interfere with the personal life of a player. What everyone "knows" unofficially is very different to what they "know" officially.
Click to expand...

If you believe addiction is an illness, then cousins ability to act responsibility is diminished and so are his judgement calls to do the right thing. In this case, the club when it first became aware should have been the one to make the right judgement calls in regards to Cousins career.

Remember, justice is blind. As soon as Cousins' activities started to have an affect on his performance as a player (ie, missing training sessions) the Eagles acted.
Click to expand...

They suspended him on the pretence of missing sessions and turning up in unacceptable condition. No mention of drugs in the suspension. they played semantics, they lose because of it. If they had said from the start is was for drugs, the AFL could have sanctioned at the same time and it would be a non issue. BTW, they said they knew of his problems from last July, which also included missing sessions. So what you are saying is not entirely correct.

I've worked with drug users in the past... everyone knew they took drugs, but they never got caught and it never affected their work. What right does an employer have to dictate the personal life of an employee?
Click to expand...

There are OH&S issues with footballers fronting up having used drugs in the immediate past, playing and training. thats enough for it to be an issue

I don't know. But there are way more drug users in the AFL than just Cousins. Three repeat offenders at the very least. Should they not be playing?
Click to expand...

The AFL dont and are not allowed to know who they are, so as bad as it is, there is nothing they can do. In this case, the AFL do know
 
Embley said:
Gunnar why do you keep wasting your time going over the same things with the same clowns day in day out?

Anyone with a brain sees that the Cousins saga up to this stage has been done to death and reliving the same arguement 5 times a day wont change anything. Move on people.
Click to expand...


cousins saga is only really starting, his come back, AFL's response, players response on the field etc etc.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The AFL dont and are not allowed to know who they are, so as bad as it is, there is nothing they can do.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Of course they know. Everyone here knows who the 3 repeat offenders are. The AFL also knows who the 30+ 'one strike' offenders are too. How else could they arrange help for them?

Your here calling for Cousins to be punished by the AFL even though he has never failed a test yet the 30+ people who have failed tests walk away scot free.
 
Max zero said:
What are you talking about? Of course they know. Everyone here knows who the 3 repeat offenders are. The AFL also knows who the 30+ 'one strike' offenders are too. How else could they arrange help for them?

Your here calling for Cousins to be punished by the AFL even though he has never failed a test yet the 30+ people who have failed tests walk away scot free.
Click to expand...

The AFL are not allowed to know who test positive, or if they do they have an arrangement with the AFLPA not to penalise. the only ones informed are the player's club doctors. Even the clubs are not notified. Only on the third strike do the AFL and club know. The AFL are not the testing authority, it is contracted out and that is where the leaks come from.

But that doesnt mean any player that is found out by other means falls under the grace provided by the testing regime
 
Kakano said:
He has been in re-hab mate so suspension is meaningless he woulda missed games due to his health anyway. The suspension should start once he is fit and healthy 12 weeks or whatever the rule is.
Click to expand...

Yes, just like when a player gets injurred and suspended in the same game. They don't bother appealing the suspension because they can't play the next week anyway. No doubt the next time this happens to a pies player you'll be on here arguing that the suspension shouldn't apply until he's fit to play?
 
FuManchu said:
The AFL are not allowed to know who test positive. the only one informed are the player's club doctors. Even the clubs are not notified. Only on the third strike do the AFL and club know. The AFL are not the testing authority, it is contracted out and that is where the leaks come from
Click to expand...

Plausible deniability at it's best.

There was a court case to try and get the 3 repeat offenders names published.

Lots of media attention.

A case of bringing the game into disrepute?
 
Max zero said:
Plausible deniability at it's best.

There was a court case to try and get the 3 repeat offenders names published.

Lots of media attention.

A case of bringing the game into disrepute?
Click to expand...
I dont disagree, its a sham of a law, but its what they agreed to and until they change it, it will always be held up to ridicule. But as I stated, the AFL have never restricted penalty in drug use to just the outcomes of the testing regime.
 
EscapeHere said:
Yes, just like when a player gets injurred and suspended in the same game. They don't bother appealing the suspension because they can't play the next week anyway. No doubt the next time this happens to a pies player you'll be on here arguing that the suspension shouldn't apply until he's fit to play?
Click to expand...


Thats the clubs choice, ethics suggests one should serve his suspension after he is fit especially if the suspension was for something that was reckless. This in my opinion applies regardless of wheter i am a pies or a west coast supporter so keep the loyalty bullshit idea out of it alright .
 
FuManchu said:
I dont disagree,its a sham of a law, but its what they agreed to and until they change it, it will always be held up to ridicule. But as i state, the AFL have never restricted penalty in drug use to just what the outcomes of the testing regime are.
Click to expand...

So why stop at Cousins?

No wait, let me guess. The only thing incriminating the other 30+ is their failed drug test.

Ironically enough it may of been better for Cousins to fail a test he would of probably been better off.
 
Max zero said:
So why stop at Cousins?

No wait, let me guess. The only thing incriminating the other 30+ is their failed drug test.

Ironically enough it may of been better for Cousins to fail a test he would of probably been better off.
Click to expand...
More of a question, why not start with Cousins? He doesnt have the protection of that agreement with the AFLPA. And if they want a poster boy for their supposed tough stance on drugs and an easy conviction to boot, he's the one. If they dont penalise on this one, they might as well just say 'go ahead fellas, its open drug season'

And yes, he would have been much better off, and therein lies the farcical nature of the testing regime.
 
FuManchu said:
The AFL are not allowed to know who test positive, or if they do they have an arrangement with the AFLPA not to penalise. the only ones informed are the player's club doctors. Even the clubs are not notified. Only on the third strike do the AFL and club know. The AFL are not the testing authority, it is contracted out and that is where the leaks come from.

But that doesnt mean any player that is found out by other means falls under the grace provided by the testing regime
Click to expand...

source? >,>

every newspaper article I've read only says that the public and the club is in the dark.

where did you get your information from?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Cousins

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top